| >A law can be "not racist", but still be crafted with certain intentions in mind; it's easy to exploit certain correlations to achieve a certain end result. Correlation does not imply causation. >But if you want to exclude certain people from your neighborhood, and those people happen to often be from a certain culture/socioeconomic class… No doubt, no one wants to live around low class riff raff. That's not race specific, and so, is by definition not racist. >It's also worth noting that the same laws were applied to Asians - exclusionary zoning and housing policies led to the consolidation of populations within certain neighborhoods, like San Francisco's Chinatown Now you're straw manning hard. No one is making the claim that laws of the past weren't racist. Now, they're not, and so Asians, Indians, Africans (as in recent African immigrants) all flood to the suburbs because suburbs are decidedly not racist, and are free of the riff raff. >It wasn't always the case that most Asians could (whether financially or politically) move to the suburbs. Same for whites. Many/most were locked away in perpetual poverty in rural areas. |